A couple who prayed instead of taking their daughter to the hospital as she lay dying at their home were rightfully convicted of homicide, a state attorney told the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case that raises questions about when prayer healing turns criminal.
Attorneys for Dale and Leilani Neumann argued that the couple didn't know when the state's legal protections for prayer healing ended and criminal liability began.
But Assistant Attorney General Maura Whelan told the justices that Wisconsin's religious protections clearly don't apply when a child dies and the couple caused the death of their 11-year-old daughter, Madeline Kara, who was suffering from undiagnosed diabetes.
"They created an unreasonable and substantial risk of death," Whelan said. "They did so knowingly and they caused Kara's death."
The Neumanns are appealing their conviction in a case that poses charged questions for the justices about when the state's responsibility to protect children trumps religious freedom.
But I think this is a question of parental rights.... that last statement sends chills down my spine. What if Obama decided anyone pregnant under 18 yrs old needed an abortion.
3 comments:
There is a case out West now dealing with a disabled adult where the State is trying to overrule the guardians (the parents) and force an abortion.
It's cases like this that I believe will be used to show the HHS mandate will overrule religious freedom. It's because the State will say that contraception is valid medical practice and that the Church cannot interfere with a valid medical prescription for a person choosing to use it.
THe bishops erred in hiring secular lawyers trying the wrong stategy. They should have approached it as questionable medical practice and elective behaviour. The insurance companies did that for years.
The Catholic Church has always maintained that people can legitimately decline extraordinary care. And in the case of a minor, the parents make those decisions.
This represents a major breakdown in trust between government and parents. And a major usurpation of responsibility of the state. It is the PARENTS responsibility to protect children.
Suppose as a parent you refuse, on moral grounds, an organ donation for your child because you suspect the organ came from a living donor?
This case does not bode well for parental rights or religious freedom.
Nonsense BlackJack.
Catholic teaching would support the action of the State in this particular case. Treatment of diabetes is not "extraordinary care". The Church has always recognized the legitimate exercise of the medical practice and its relationship with the natural gift of human reason from God.
However, having said that, it is scandalous practices by parents such as these that gives precedent to the State to intervene when it should not.
Post a Comment